I wrote about “vague demands” in an earlier post. A vague demand is an expression couched in NVC need-style language that masks moralism and demand. (For example, “that doesn’t meet my need for fairness”, or “accountability” or “respect”.) Most of what I hear from NVC practitioners (including teachers) when dealing with or coaching someone triggered are what I call vague demands.

A reader responded to the earlier post, and I understand his comments to say that that such remarks are expressions of “honesty”. I’ve heard that term used in this way before, and I’d like to suggest another viewpoint. Of course, one can express one’s opinions & judgments with “honesty”, but I don’t think that’s what Marshall had in mind when teaching about honest & empathy, and I certainly don’t think that kind of honesty helps to nurture inner & outer connection, leading to hearts awakened to joyful giving & receiving at a deep level.

I expect people to go through stages of deepening into NVC Consciousness, and perhaps NVC-sounding vague demands represents some progress. I’m not really sure it does, however, as I’ve so rarely heard practitioners (externally certified or otherwise, even certification assessors) get beyond that stage. Moreover, I see teaching and teaching materials propagating & reinforcing vague demands as if they were the real connecting stuff of Life. See today’s “NVC Quick Connect” newsleter for some examples, as well as the widely-circulated document on translating faux-feelings to needs, developed collaboratively at an IIT. My partner Holly had more to say about these issues today in a post called “Sounds like NVC, must be NVC …?” I recommend her post.

With help from Holly, I got it today that I’m especially distressed when NVC teachers use & teach vague demands. NVC as Marshall teaches & demonstrates (most of the time) is the approach I’m most inspired about and confident in, for solving the “significant problems of our time” (as Einstein put it). I want to see NVC’s potential power & depth shared effectively, and so I care a lot about what the teachers are modeling and teaching.

Holly & I came up with a simple test for whether we’ve really connected with a Need. The test is “Heart opening or heart closing?” For us and our students, this test helps us not to settle for NVC-sounding head stuff, and keep looking for the real gold. We’ve also realized that the whole idea of teaching & learning how to talk is almost guaranteed to lead to vague demands, because it’s so much easier to change words than change consciousness. So we no longer teach the four-step process, and instead re-interpret observations, feelings, needs, & requests as tools for clarity and self-connection. Once one makes the inner shift, we recommend speaking without conscious effort. Without the shift, the effort just clouds our awareness of our unawareness.

I’m not sure how much this helps, but in reference to vague demands I’d like to point out, that at the time the person says “That doesn’t meet my need for fairness” no demand is made. Not even a request is made. What I think you mean, Conal, is that you expect it to be a demand. I stick to the definition of a demand, which says that the only way to find out, whether it is a demand or a request, is to see what happens, if you say no. You can test this. If the person is reacting by criticism, moralistic judgment, threat of punishment or actual punishment you can say that it was actually a demand.
The neat thing is that if YOU yourself are connected to your own needs and don’t take the response personally by making a story about your self-worth out of it, you won’t hear a demand. Because you won’t demand it of yourself. You won’t join into the exterior criticism by interior criticism. And whether you do or not is really your responsibility. If you make a different choice, it will give you the chance to hear the actual fear behind the other person’s demand. And then you can inquire further about the other person’s intent, without having to react. This is empathy. And by using empathy you clarify what’s actually going on for the other person and what specifically can be done about it, with or without you.

at the time the person says “That doesn’t meet my need for fairness” no demand is made. Not even a request is made. What I think you mean, Conal, is that you expect it to be a demand. I stick to the definition of a demand, which says that the only way to find out, whether it is a demand or a request, is to see what happens, if you say no.

Perhaps you & I have different understandings here. What you’ve called “the definition of a demand”, I describe as a test for a demand. (And, by the way, I like that test very much.) I don’t think I’ve heard Marshall define “demand”. A definition might be “attachment to strategy”. Marshall’s “say no and watch” test is a way for that demand (attachment) to become visible.

For instance, “That doesn’t meet my need for respect” directed with anger at another person, as if the other person should be meeting that need for the speaker. Or directed in fear, as if the other person is in any way necessary for the fulfillment of the need.

The fear or anger directed at another person is the response to “no” (acted rather than spoken), i.e., what happens when that person doesn’t support the expected strategy. It’s a gripping onto the strategy, instead of opening into the universe of possibilities. For instance, “That doesn’t meet my need for respect!” might translate to “I’m attached to using you in meeting my need for self-respect. I’m afraid I won’t find a way without using your help, and I mad at you for not making it easy for me.”

I like what you have to say about freeing yourself from the other person’s criticism, and focusing on what really affects you, which is whether you match their criticism of you with your own. I’m with you there. The reason I raise the issue of vague demands is that I regularly see teachers of NVC modeling vague demands and calling them “needs”, and I’m concerned about their students missing the heart of NVC Consciousness and instead learning a language that obscures the consciousness and practice of attachment and coercion. I prefer jackals to be out in the open.

Does this additional explanation shift your understanding of vague demands, as I’ve described them?

Yes it does. I like your clarity about my definition of a demand being actually a test. I agree. And I also understand your point about modeling vague demands and calling them “needs”. I get from it, that you’d like trainers to provide more clarity about what lies behind e.g. “That doesn’t meet my need for respect!” so that the beauty of the need and all its various other possibilities to get met is revealed.
I heard once that the benefit of jackals is that they know very well when a need is not met, they’re fast and energetic. The problem comes at the clarity level. They know THAT a need isn’t being met but not WHICH specifically and therefore they don’t see other possibilities of meeting it. So what is needed there is more clarity and maybe more empathy to provide a space for clarity. And I’m in agreement with you that I wouldn’t want NVC-students to miss this opportunity.

I heard once that the benefit of jackals is that they know very well when a need is not met, they’re fast and energetic. The problem comes at the clarity level. They know THAT a need isn’t being met but not WHICH specifically and therefore they don’t see other possibilities of meeting it.